believing in your religion or whether you are non-religious, do you agree with abortion? (quote, God)

[aries63]

I would like to think that rape doesn't lead automatically to abortion. I am a product of rape, my mother as a young woman was date-raped by my father whom she met only once (those were my biological parents--I was surrendered for adoption shortly after birth).

Still I think what a woman does with her body has to be up to her, although I would like to see adoption more common in these circumstances. I am male, pro-choice, and Episcopalian. I really admire people who adopt children, especially older kids in foster care who have never known a loving family, the ones who are difficult to adopt.

[Thomas R.]

I guess I'm the first Anti-Choice person to vote.

I do understand Pro-Choice thinking a bit better these days. Some is based on the idea only something sentient/sapient has rights. Others say that no one is required to use their body to help another. You're not even required to give blood to save a life. Many say a person has absolute autonomy over anything in their body, but that argument is so unreal I basically ignore it. (If you think it's real name me a country that legalizes heroin, prostitution, and voluntary amputation.)

On the first rights can't plausibly be limited to the sentient/sapient for a variety of reasons. One of them being I don't think we're a 100% certain what beings have or do not have that quality. For another infants are arguably not sentient/sapient.

The second is a bit harder to argue against. If being attached to another person for nine months was the only way to save their life the law likely would allow you to refuse. Still in some ways that's different as it's a matter of not doing something than undoing it. Would the law allow a stronger conjoined twin to remove the weaker without the weaker one's consent? I kind of think it wouldn't unless there was grave health reasons or the risk of death. Also technically the second only gives one the right to remove a fetus. This generally means the fetus will die, but if someday an early fetus can be removed and placed in say an artificial womb than this justification would become moot. And even using this justification the woman who has an abortion is essentially like the person who refuses to donate marrow to save a life. Basically such people are seen as selfish or cowardly. (Possibly I could tolerate abortion being "safe, legal, and utterly despicable" but actually in some ways that's harsher than I am) Some of this is academic as abortion is generally not just a passive "letting a thing die" it's an active "inject a thing with dioxin or saline solution."

Additionally I have a genetic condition and I was born poor. What abortion often does, in our society, is basically put certain kinds of people in the category of "Life unworthy of Life." If your mother is poor she can't "afford you" and you do not deserve a chance. Non-existence is better than poverty. If you are crippled and your parents can't handle that then denying your existence is "for the best." It's best for the Secular Right too because they don't have to worry about social services or worker's rights for pregnant women or having so many poor kids in homes they disapprove of running around.

[Bette]

I am a Christian and am against abortion. I have known those who have been wild and just not cared about the consequences until years later....

It is a tough decision and I'm sure many see it as that, however, looking bad, often, you should not be in that position. It's hard.

My husband was pro-choice, pro-abortion until we got married. We had a baby right away (9 months, 1 day) and our emotions shocked us. He is now pro-life.

There are so many people that would adopt. That is a great alternative. I know so many young women who can't have their own children but would gladly adopt and give a child a good home.

I do think a young woman should see all sides and be informed as should her parents if she is under 18.

[TKramar]

Thomas R.

Not voluntary amputation, but for the other two, the Netherlands.

We get rid of tapeworms without a second thought.

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by TKramar

Thomas R.

Not voluntary amputation, but for the other two, the Netherlands.

We get rid of tapeworms without a second thought.

If a tapeworm could grow up to be a speaking rational being than I think it would or could be different.

Also I'm pretty sure heroin is not legal even in the Netherlands. Although enforcement is apparently on a "harm reduction" basis and I guess Portugal legalizes the use of all drugs, but there appears to be limitations on right to possess drugs.

[catman]

I despise those labels and false equivalencies. "Pro-life" carries with it the implication that being against it is being "anti-life". And being "pro-choice" is hardly "pro-abortion", as if it's a great thing which should be promoted. If it's desired, abortion should be performed ASAP after conception. Still, the person who is pregnant (hopefully a woman) ahould have the final say. A universal availability of contraceptives and information would, of course, reduce the demand for abortion considerably.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by agnostic soldier

You're poll is misleading. Pro choice doesn't mean pro abortion. It means believing in elective abortion, which entails allowing someone the right to have an abortion. Most pro choicers aren't pro abortion. It's also a flawed claim that the majority of abortions are used as a form of birth control, when in fact that is not the case.

I'm a Gnostic Theist (I KNOW God exists)...I'm not at all "religious".

I always saw through the use of the ultra-general terms/sayings like "pro choice" & "right to choose" as a cover for saying you are for the right to kill a baby in the womb.
"Choose" what? "Choose" is a very general term. We don't call every decision we determine should be made manifest into action a "right to choose". So why arbitrarily call THAT decision to act, a right to "choose"? Ooooooooh wait!!...I know!...it's a "cover" way to say, "having the kid would cramp my style in some way, so I've decided to ace it"

The start of a new human life...and it IS a human being, not something else...begins at conception...that is not up for debate. The viability outside the womb is inconsequential...a newborn is not fully "viable" and is TOTALLY dependent on the care of more mature/developed humans for it's survival...MOF it is now MORE work to keep it alive than it was for the mother to maintain it's life in her womb. The argument about viability is just an excuse to try to claim the child is able to be killed without it being labeled as such. It's the SAME baby inside the womb, as it will be outside the womb...just smaller and less developed. It's THAT person, and no other, the second the sperm fertilizes the egg...and for as long as they live.

The vast of abortions are nothing more than "killings of convienience"...very rarely is the mothers life at risk, or the pregnancy the result of a sexual assault. To cite the rare exception...that might allow the practice as a "defense action"...to justify the vast majority, is grasping at straws. The oft used argument that the baby is being euthanized to prevent it's potential misery is also bogus...by that logic, we should do away everyone that doesn't have a "great life"...so they won't "suffer" any further.

It is almost beyond comprehension that a civilized society could ever allow such a heinous practice. It's the ULTIMATE genocide to ever occur in the history of the world. It blows my mind to even think that man could be so evil and selfish to be able to accept it. The ultimate of mankinds' inhumanity.
Willfully arrange (and in most cases, pay to have it done) to kill an innocent baby developing in the womb!!--Every time I contemplate the reality, that such a thing not only occurs...but occurs at a rate of a million a week...it gives me that terrible feeling deep inside me...like I get watching a graphic documentary of the holocaust (you know....the ones with the giant piles of bodies being bulldozed), the mass slaughter of the Native Americans, or the slave trade. It makes me realize how evil mankind REALLY is...and that selfishness and hedonism is so boundless it can compel some people to commit the most heinous and reprehensible of acts.
A mother conspiring to kill her own young as it grows inside her--That we could even suggest it...let alone commit such an act over 100,000 times a day...is something soooooooo absolutely wicked...it blows my mind.

In my opinion, the legalized slaughter of hundreds and hundreds of millions of innocents, by their own mothers, through abortion, is the greatest evil ever known in the history of mankind.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

I am pro choice to a certain time cut off because I have no choice. I have not been shown and arguments against it, so nothing has convinced me otherwise. So what choice do I have.

And it is not that I have not looked for them either. Where I am from there are often people with their anti abortion stands in the city, showing pictures of what aborted fetuses look like. I have on numerous occasions gone to them and asked for their points and arguments so I can consider them.

They just keep saying “look at the pictures” as if this is argument enough. One of them even screamed it at me 5 times “look at the pictures…. Look at the pictures….” Louder each time until I was forced to back away slowly before feeling the distance between us was safe enough to turn and walk.

So what on the pictures? They are not pretty, true… but neither are pictures of heart bypass treatments. The hideousness of seeing a chest cut open and blood and tubes everywhere says nothing about heart bypasses being “wrong” does it? Something not looking pretty does not make it morally wrong.

So so far these people appear to have no point to make…. The only people I hear making points are people who invent gods and then pretend to know those gods put “souls” into the zygote at the “moment” of conception. However I do not tend to take wholly invented fantasy as valid points… weird as that may seem to some.... and so these points are not valid to me until someone gets around to providing a shred of argument to support the base premise... that their god even exists in the first place.

Also beware of people like the poster above me who declares that the whole premise their argument is based on is "that is not up for debate". Usually when you hear that line the first thing you should realise is that most often people say it about something that VERY MUCH is up for debate. The meaning of the word "human" in any context is both subjective and variable and is hence very much "up for debate". If someone declares it is NOT up for debate they are usually doing so because they do not want to debate it.... or literally can not debate it.... so they hope their hand waving and declarations by fiat will make you look the other way. The meaning of "human", especially in a discussion of morality and/or human rights is something that not only is very much "up for debate" but it is a paramount point that we owe it to ourselves as a species to debate if we want to pretend to care about rights and morality at all.

[Mooseketeer]

I am pro choice but nobody in my experience is pro-abortion. I have never met a pro-choice person who thought Abortion was something to be happy and gleeful about.

It is always a difficult and soul searching experience in my opinion for women , not something that people take lightly. I am sure there are a teeny-tiny minority of women who have abortions and who are not affected by it but I think they would would be the exception rather than the rule.

My body, my choice though. I don't tell you what to do with yours , please do not tell me what to do with mine.

In an ideal world abortions would never be necessary. In the real world I think it is better for people to be honest about their capacity to deal with a child or their capacity to deal emotionally with having to deal with carrying a pregnancy to term, giving birth and then giving the child away.

To me life begins with birth. And the life of a living human being takes precedence over that of a foetus.


Do I think it is desirable ? of course no. Do I think it is often necessary. Yes I do, emphatically so.

I would prefer if people were more responsible and did not put themselves in situations where unwanted pregnancies are an issue ( and am a strong advocate of good open sex education and teaching sexual responsibility both physically and morally) but even the most responsible of people , can have "accidents".

I know had I become pregnant I would have almost certainly have had a termination. I have never wanted children, have no interest in them whatsoever and could certainly not have coped physically or mentally with adoption.

I am grateful for the choice and not being forced to give birth to a child I would have no feelings for apart from resentment and anger.

Forcing a woman to have a child is evil torture, pure and simple.

I would certainly prefer if there were NO unwanted pregnancies ever in this world but this is not sadly the case.

ALL Children deserve to be loved and wanted.

To me my basic human right as a woman is the right to my body. Yes a Foetus will become a baby but until it is born it is nothing but an increasingly very sophisticated bunch of cells .

I would personally prefer if people who are so anti abortion were that vocal about child abuse, and about other serious issues which affect living children such as extreme poverty, lack of access to education, healthcare, real opportunities in life and so many more besides. So many people seem to concentrate on the pre-birth aspects of a child to be's life than on the actual living child's one which to me is perplexing and deeply flawed in terms of reasoning.

I think "babies" are for many people about the most emotional trigger there is and rationality often goes out of the window when it comes to a logical , sentient debate. It all really comes down to our definition of "life" and "live" basically. For some people life begins at conception, for others with the baby to be's heartbeat etc... For me at birth.


The debate between pro-choice and pro-life will never be a fruitful one because both sides simply cannot see the other person's perspective. It is a deeply emotional issue and one which will never be resolved.

Some people value the "life" of a foetus over that of a living woman and that to me is intellectually perverse but I respect people's views as long as they do not try and legislate against the reproductive human rights of others.

As long as nobody is forced to have an abortion, nobody should be prevented from it either. It is a choice. If a woman who has been raped by her father choses to go through with the pregnancy and can cope with it then yes good for her and I will admire her resilience of spirit. But let us not force our values onto others. There is not "one size fits all" case when it comes to such a serious issue. Only I know what I am capable of and unable to face.



I do not expect people to have abortions against their will, do not expect me to give birth against my will. Both would be deeply wrong and immoral.

The real issue to me is really to try and encourage people to be more responsible and prepared. We need better education, not only on the mechanics of sex but on the moral consequences of our actions . Sex does have consequences and should not be taken lightly and I say this as a liberal leftie.

We need to re-assess the way we educate our kids ( and adults) but also need to accept that no matter how responsible and well prepared things will go wrong sometimes.

I would just be a lot happier knowing the numbers of terminations were as low as they could humanly be. Because at the end of the day there is no rejoicing in having to terminate a pregnancy whatever the circumstances.

I see it as a necessary "evil" so to speak but not one which is to be taken lightly. It is deeply sad and regrettable that any pregnancies are unwanted but it is a fact of life.

Abortion to me is the only thing which makes sense from a moral point of view as regrettable as it might be because the choice ultimately has to rest with the woman in question. Nobody else can make that decision for her, it would be reprehensible and corrupt IMO.

[HalfNelson]

I must agree with others here that the definitions of the choices for this poll are poorly constructed. That being said, I am a male christian who is pro-choice, but not in the traditional sense, and certainly not as it is defined by this poll.

I believe a woman should have the right to choose what goes on with her own body. However, if a woman chooses to use her body for the activity that results in another body growing inside her, well then she made her choice regarding her own body and now needs to take responsibility for the body within her, that is not her own. If the child is threatening the life of the mother and a doctor says that terminating the pregnancy is the only means of saving the mothers life, then I would say that the mothers life is the first priority, and the pregnancy should be terminated, on the grounds of self-defense.